Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

About This Googler's Manifesto

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 404 posts

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#241

Post by _xhok »

untog wrote: post #222
pacala wrote: post #199

> And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just…

[I've made about four edits to this post and still can't do it justice - should have drafted it more thoroughly. Others have made my points much more effectively and this is just a distraction, so I'll remove it]

Imagine for a second that, controlling for all environmental factors, the average IQ of men was shown to be 3 points lower than women. (Totally hypothetical.) Additionally, women in this world outperform men at chess by a noticeable margin.

There is a valid argument in this case to be made about how the reason women are better than men at chess is partly biological, and that chess diversity programs should be cognizant of this. How would you propose this be brought up in today's climate without offending people?

I don't know if you haven't read the manifesto, or are happy making simplifications for the sake of making conclusive moral statements, but it is wildly dishonest to claim the manifesto argued that "women are genetically inferior." It argued that on average, looking at various traits and preferences, men and women are better at and care about different things, some of which make them better suited -- again, on average-- to some professions than others.

You can disagree and that can be a fun internet argument, but judging by the reaction to this manifesto, the sheer outrage while misrepresenting the manifesto's content, sort of demonstrates the author's meta-point about ideological homogeneity.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#242

Post by codygman »

dlwdlw wrote: post #122

There's a bit if immaturity in the manifesto despite it being very rational and well-reason. In my mind, it's the immaturity of a rich kid who is very intelligent, having had the best teachers, and also well meaning and trying to do good. To understand what affirmative action actually tries to do it must be understood that there are 2 primary types of moats. One is a "Test Moat" that tests required abilities. A firef…

Thanks for writing this out. It effectively communicates many of the underlying reasons for the state of technology in regards to race and how it affects accessibility.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#243

Post by pacala »

untog wrote: post #222
pacala wrote: post #199

> And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just…

[I've made about four edits to this post and still can't do it justice - should have drafted it more thoroughly. Others have made my points much more effectively and this is just a distraction, so I'll remove it]

> The manifesto argues that women are genetically inferior and that most women developers shouldn't have their job.

Can you please substantiate? Link for the manifesto: https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#244

Post by thehardsphere »

nl wrote: post #166
MichaelGG wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying discrimination, meaning non-equal results, is fine. I don't think there should be any active discrimination, and incorrect unintentional discrimination should also be removed.

I'm saying discrimination, meaning non-equal results I think you may want to reconsider the word you use for that, because that isn't a widely shared definition. To be clear, when you say "discrimination.. [snip] is fine" most people hear that as "making hiring or promotion decisions based sorely or primarily on the gender of the person is fine". That's what the dictionary definition is too. This isn't discrimination…

I think the other person with which you are speaking is communicating clearly enough without your help on what the definition of words are supposed to mean.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#245

Post by cropsieboss »

ue_ wrote: post #240
cropsieboss wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and somehow he knows it goes against nearly all research. That manifesto is obviously inspired by recent rise in popularity of Jordan B Peterson. That guy is a very good psychologist.

He may be a good psychologist, but he frequently speaks on political issues in which he appears to be consistently misinformed, especially his conception on postmodernism, Marxism and the nature of proof[0]. [0] https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/40520012623631155...

postmodernism marxism and nature of proof don't sound like political issues.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#246

Post by thehardsphere »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #48
Barrin92 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

saying that women are biologically worse engineers would be the primary candidate

I didn't see that at all. What I understood him to be saying was that on average (across society), there are various biological differences. I don't see any insult there, intended or not. I thought his only intent was to argue against institutionalized discrimination.

It was.

Apparently, lots of people either haven't read the "manifesto", or have but have read into it something not explicitly stated by the author.

I think some critics have claimed that the things explicitly stated by the author implictly mean something bad, but they haven't actually made the effort of showing that conclusion is supported by anything the author wrote.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#247

Post by api »

anjc wrote: post #152
api wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the demons hiding in this issue is the is/ought fallacy. People go from is to ought quite readily in these areas. Let's say blacks really are on average better at basketball. Does it then follow that whites and asians ought not play basketball ? Nobody argues that because it's silly. (Or do they? I'm not in pro ball.) People do argue that women should not be in tech. Women in tech regardless of ability get cre…

> People do argue that women should not be in tech At least pretend that you don't have a completely blinkered view of the world.

Really? I've read several screeds arguing against women in the workforce in the past few years.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#248

Post by ue_ »

cropsieboss wrote: post #245
ue_ wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He may be a good psychologist, but he frequently speaks on political issues in which he appears to be consistently misinformed, especially his conception on postmodernism, Marxism and the nature of proof[0]. [0] https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/40520012623631155...

postmodernism marxism and nature of proof don't sound like political issues.

Postmodernism is a political issue, or at least, it is involved in critical theory which influences politics. Marxism is a critique of political economy. I didn't mean to group the last item in with "political issues", though the point that he is misinformed still stands.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#249

Post by seattle_spring »

mcphage wrote: post #206
MichaelGG wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original doc doesn't argue women shouldn't be in tech, so it is irrelevant what some people suggest. It argues a 50/50 parity might not exist in part due to biology. What if it turns out that one gender is on avg smarter but with less range of intelligence (with some magically perfect measurement of intelligence, to avoid claims of test bias). So if that was true, would we THEN be OK with other than 50/50 split i…

> All that Google would have to do is admit 50/50 isn't based on anything hard, and commit to finding out what the real number should be. It is based on something hard—the gender distribution in the population.

But not the gender distribution of people who are qualified to work in the field. If we want gender parity in employment, we need gender parity in graduating classes. Trying to have one without the other is a ridiculous endeavor.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#250

Post by ukj »

untog wrote: post #222
pacala wrote: post #199

> And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just…

[I've made about four edits to this post and still can't do it justice - should have drafted it more thoroughly. Others have made my points much more effectively and this is just a distraction, so I'll remove it]

>The manifesto argues that women are genetically inferior and that most women developers shouldn't have their job.

Are we reading the same manifesto? The one I read argues that men and women are different. Pros and cons. Strengths and weaknesses.

I think you are the one holding a binary view while conflating different and inferior?

Post reply on HN